The ‘stealth campaigner’

The New York Times noted today that, conventional wisdom notwithstanding, the president is still in high demand on the campaign trail, at least by some.

President Bush cannot show up just anywhere in the waning days of this midterm campaign. But there is a certain class of Republicans who are somewhere between eager and willing to have him at their sides.

There are those facing ethical questions or struggling to recover from gaffes. There are those desperate for the cash Mr. Bush can bring in just by showing up for lunch. There are those who need the president to turn out a demoralized base. And there are those who, like Vern Buchanan, the Republican candidate for the House [in Sarasota, Fla.], are a little bit of all three.

With this in mind, the president’s supporters are apparently reveling a bit in the president’s new-found popularity on the trail. One prominent conservative blogger I read noted, “The conventional wisdom of these midterms casts George Bush as Kryptonite to Republicans in close races, with candidates practically stumbling over themselves to achieve maximum distance from the President. The New York Times reports that conventional wisdom seems to have misunderestimated Bush again.”

And given the NYT article, that may seem compelling. There is, however, a catch: the president is sought after on the campaign trail, but usually as a “stealth campaigner.”

Candidates across the country, especially those in tight races where the president’s power to draw cash is most valuable, want him to drop by for a fundraiser. They just don’t want their picture taken with the head of the party — mainly because they know it will end up in their opponents’ television commercials.

So far this year, Mr. Bush has done 10 times as many closed-press fundraising events compared to 2002. He has also not appeared at a single major Republican rally, unlike four years ago, when he did 32.

“What a difference a few years makes,” said Democratic National Committee spokesman Stacie Paxton. “Republicans are happy to take his cash, but when it comes to photo-ops and campaign stops, President Bush is persona non grata…. Clearly, President Bush is toxic to many of the candidates across the country.”

Let’s compare midterm cycles. In 2002, Bush did 71 fundraising events; this year he’s done 67. Pretty close, obviously. The difference, however, is that reporters and photographers were barred from just three of these events in 2002, while this year, 33 fundraisers have been closed to the press, including a Republican National Committee dinner last night in Boca Raton, Fla.

In 2002, Bush took part in 32 voter rallies at airports and sports arenas. This year, he’s attended one, in Utah, and it was a non-political event on behalf of U.S. troops.

In 2002, Bush attended 12 public rallies. This year, he’s attended zero.

That “Kryptonite” metaphor isn’t quite as useless as some of the president’s supporters might think.

Dang. I wanted to have a beer with him, now that he’s drinking again!

I hope he got the memo from Frist about “Not stressing Iraq”

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Oct25/0,4670,RepublicansIraq,00.html

  • Here is what I don’t understand about the Shrub’s Backdoor Man act: Doesn’t it just feed the idea that ReThuglicans don’t much care for the common man? Oh no, don’t expect me to attend an event where any old prole can wander in. Goodness, I may swoon! Especially when he haunts triple-digit-a-plate campaign lunches. (Or should I say Luncheons?)

    Is it supposed to stir the most ardent Kool-Aid guzzlers (who are rewarded with a chance to gaze upon his Chimpishness’ Face) into a frenzy so they go out and catapult the propoganda over those lesser beings that weren’t allowed into His Presence?
    I don’t get it.

  • This year, he’s attended one, in Utah, and it was a non-political event on behalf of U.S. troops.

    Bush doesn’t do anything that isn’t political.

  • They just don’t want their picture taken with the head of the party — mainly because they know it will end up in their opponents’ television commercials.

    So in private he’s welcome but in public he doesn’t exist. Reminds me of Nixon’s admonition: “Don’t listen to what we say, watch what we do!”

    How typically Republican.

  • Why do our tax dollars have to pay for him to spend all his time reaching into wealthy donors pockets to raise money for his own political party? The Dems, when they have the power to do so, need to place limits on this presidential practice for future generations. If he’s out raising funds for the party, the party should pay for his entourage. Between his vacations, 2-hour mid-day exercise sessions and his fundraising, I wonder how much of his time is devoted to actually paying attention to the people’s work? I know that’s unfortunately a really stupid question, since his “work” isn’t in our interests anyway, but it pisses me off that he spends so much time away from the office on our dime.

  • I’d love to hear this brought up in one of his press conferences:

    “Mr. President, so far this year, you’ve attended 10 times as many closed-press fundraising events compared to 2002. You have also not appeared at a single major Republican rally, unlike four years ago, when you did 32. It’s clear that you have the time available to campaign for certain GOP candidates, so why have so many of your appearances been off limits to the press and media coverage this year as compared to years past?”

  • “Republicans are happy to take his cash, but when it comes to photo-ops and campaign stops, President Bush is persona non grata….”

    “Gimme the cash, keep your love to yourself”, said the pimp to his ho…

  • Wait a minute. The man who represents the US on the global stage — the one elected official supposed to represent all of us — hides behind closed doors? And the Republicans in Congress, who so have so adamantly supported, so ruthlessly defended, and constantly bowed to this man — they can’t risk being appearing in a photo with him? There is something very wrong here.

  • Comments are closed.